Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explanations for the Cambrian Explosion
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 31 of 137 (486722)
10-23-2008 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by NOT JULIUS
10-23-2008 8:28 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
1. If Darwin can conjecture that the tribolite descended from one-precambrian ancestor, and if there is found today a living tribolite almost exactly the same as in the fossil--can I speculate that Darwin took us for a ride?
No since Darwin didn't have the benefit of DNA and the genomes of the particular entities, there would have been only speculation on the relationships of the various species. Trilobites create a problem in that with no surviving ancestors one can only speculate as to their relationship to either the mandibulate arthropods (insects, crustaceans, diplopods) or the chelicerate arthropods (horseshoe crabs or arachnids) and until such time as this can be determined there will be a problem of relationship.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 8:28 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 5:42 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 32 of 137 (486754)
10-24-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NOT JULIUS
10-23-2008 8:28 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
Doubting Too writes:
Question:
1. If Darwin can conjecture that the tribolite descended from one-precambrian ancestor, and if there is found today a living tribolite almost exactly the same as in the fossil--can I speculate that Darwin took us for a ride?
You do realise that for something to evolve from a parent specie does not require the extinction of the parent specie, don't you?
Imagine if you had a parent specie X and this specie was separated by some geological change (such as a land mass being separated by water). We can call these X and X1.
Then a population pressure is placed upon X1 (but not X).
X1 will evolve to adapt to the new population pressure (X will not).
Role the clock on and X1 (who evoled form X) are happily living life to the full.
X is still around.
Makes sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 8:28 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 5:55 PM Larni has replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 33 of 137 (486756)
10-24-2008 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blue Jay
10-20-2008 1:57 AM


Bluejay writes:
The Snapshot Effect: Creationist claims of suddenness for the Cambrian Explosion are also compounded by the “snapshot” effect. Claiming that the appearance of Cambrian shelly fauna in only a handful of locations is evidence of spontaneous creation is akin to claiming that the discovery of only a single praying mantis in a field indicates that said mantis must have been created by God, because there was nothing around it for it to have evolved from.
One difficulty with cambrian and precambrian animals is the rarity of fossiliferous rocks from this age. A great deal of them have been destroyed or metamorphosed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blue Jay, posted 10-20-2008 1:57 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 34 of 137 (486761)
10-24-2008 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NOT JULIUS
10-23-2008 8:28 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
Hi, Doubting Too.
DT writes:
First, I don't see any opponents. I only see friends trying to discuss.
In a debate, your "opponent" is someone who takes the opposite view from you. Whether you like it or not, you and I are “opposed” to one another in terms of our views about the Tree of Life and evolution. By definition, that makes us “opponents.” That you attribute a bad connotation to that word is not a problem worth even the slightest consideration. Opponents need not be enemies, but that doesn’t mean we can just distance ourselves from the reality that we are at a fundamental disagreement, which disagreement is the basic principle behind this discussion.
-----
Obviously, we’re not going to get anywhere in this debtate until we explain everything about the tree of life, evidence for evolution, and natural history to you. The problem with this approach is that we will spend a lot of time giving you back-up, and the thread will spill over the post limit before we even get to the intended subject.
But, here we go anyway:
DT writes:
1. . But, be that as it may, am I not allowed to use the word "speculate" while scientists may make "conjectures" and "estimates"--words found in this site if you drill down further?
You’re right: I should have chosen a better way to present this. But, you say that scientists are “speculating” about the tree of life, when I happen to know from personal experience that they are actually reporting the results of countless tiresome experiments and studies. The word “speculate” refers to people making stuff up off the top of their head based on a preliminary, cursory glance at some piece of information.
Of course, scientists speculate all the time. But, they don’t present speculations in peer-reviewed journals or in big science conferences, unless the intent is to stimulate conversation that could eventually turn the speculation into hypotheses to test by experimentation.
But, you have essentially called months of hard work in a laboratory “speculation.” To that, I take a small measure of offense.
DT writes:
2. Will not anybody have the right to interpret these data opposite what these men of science do?
Anyone can interpret anything however they want to. But, that doesn’t make the interpretation scientific. If your interpretation of some evidence is in direct contradiction to many, many other pieces of evidence, there is simply no reason for anyone to take your interpretation seriously.
For example, you want to look at those sixteen pictures of fossils and interpret them as evidence of intelligent design. Your interpretation would then be in direct contradiction to entire series of fossils found segregated in the geological layers in a pattern that hauntingly resembles gradual, undirected change over time (and not segregated by, for example, floating capacity, as you’d expect in the case that the Flood was responsible). It would also be in direct contradiction to about decades of work with geological dating techniques, which, despite creationist claims, are not wildly erratic nor unreliable. Your interpretation would also contradict thousands of genetics studies, which not only show patterns of accumulating change in human populations that go back thousands of years before Creation Week, but also dovetail quite nicely with the genetics studies in other primates, other mammals, other vertebrates, and, finally, with all other organisms on the face of the planet.
I cannot explain all of this evidence to you in this thread. But, I encourage you to keep reading, as you have been doing, but to read widely in many separate fields of science: there is a strong tendency in all these fields (genetics, paleontology, ecology, geology, etc.) for the evidence collected to conform to the predictions and expectations of the Theory of Evolution. ToE is not idle speculation: it’s the collected sum conclusions of over 200 years of constant work.
DT writes:
3. Looking at these 16+ picture, and relating it to the so called "tree of life" which of these do you think is Bluejay's "ancestor"--if it could be traced ( just an example, Bluejay )? Could it really be traced beyond reasonable doubt? What convincing evidence will an evolutionist-scientist give me ( I understand there are also creationist-scientists)? Whom should I believe?
Don’t turn it into a contest of trust. It’s not about who’s saying what, it’s about what the evidence points to. I don’t care if you don’t listen to anybody (in fact, you shouldn’t listen to anybody): what I care about is that the correct conclusions are arrived at through critical examination of the evidence. Critical examination of the evidence has led us to conclude that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life today and in the fossil record. Creationism does not stand up to critical examination.
And, none of those creatures is my ancestor: they are all arthropods, molluscs, and some other groups that are probably extinct. Keep in mind that there are over 65,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale (which is one of the biggest Cambrian fossil locations in the world): your 16 pictures hardly encompass the diversity found there. But, there is one animal from the Cambrian period, called Pikaia that is either the ancestor, or the cousin of the ancestor, of all vertebrates (you and I are both vertebrates, so this animal would either constitute our direct ancestor, or the direct descendant of our direct ancestor: it would be like our cousin, as Parasomnium explained). I provided the link to the Wikipedia article about Pikaia in an earlier message (the blue, underlined word in this sentence is the same link).
Keep in mind that we do not have to support all exact lineages and sequences of every, single organism on Earth in order to support the Theory of Evolution. The evidence that we have is not universal, but it is general enough to support the claim that all organisms evolve. Whether or not there is a single common ancestor is still an open question, although the likelihood for multiple “baramin” or “kinds” at the outset of Creation is extremely slim, if existent at all.
We simply do not know the exact formation of the Tree of Life (that’s why the Tree of Life Project is going on: scientists from around the world are doing phylogenetics on as many organisms as possible to elucidate the Tree to the highest degree attainable). But, our evidence is good enough to show that there is a Tree of Life. And, a Tree of Life is, itself, good evidence for the Theory of Evolution.
DT writes:
4.What if some of those fossils are found still alive today? Will supporters of evolution abandon their theory?
The simple answer is, “No.” Although we can be quite certain about many theories of science, including evolution, we cannot even come close to explaining everything. We don’t really know if it’s possible for a single species to persist for hundreds of millions of years (evidence suggests that it’s not possible, but we can’t be sure), nor are we really certain that we could look at a fossilized Opabinia regalis, and a living organism that looks the same, and conclude that are they are, in fact, the same species.
But, descendants of many of those fossils are found today. You and I are descendants of one of those organisms. The spiders and insects that I study are also descendants of some of those organisms. Jellyfish, starfish, slugs, all kinds of worms and dinosaurs all had ancestors during the Cambrian period (most of those ancestors are either present, or have cousins present, in the fossil record of the Cambrian period).
-----
DT writes:
1. If Darwin can conjecture that the trilobite descended from one-precambrian ancestor, and if there is found today a living trilobite almost exactly the same as in the fossil--can I speculate that Darwin took us for a ride?
No, you can’t speculate that “Darwin took us for a ride.” Charles Darwin was a great scientist for his time, but he is not a prophet, or a messiah, and his words are not Holy Writ to us. His contributions to science are not religious tenets that we uphold by faith and diligent pondering: rather, we have built on the start that he gave us, and, now, we know more about evolution than he ever did. We aren’t “believers” in Darwin’s holy word: we’re scientist who have found evidence to support one of several hypotheses in the natural world. I have personally not even read the entire Origin of Species (Darwin’s book that originally introduced the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection). Mainly, we discuss him from a historical perspective in science classes. Today, we talk more about science that has been done recently, and that science generally agrees with what Darwin was saying.
As to your question about finding a trilobite today: also, “No.” All animals today are descendants of animals that lived in the Cambrian period. Trilobites went extinct. Many other forms of animals went extinct, just as the non-avian dinosaurs would go extinct 400 million years after the “Cambrian Explosion.” Many lineages of animals have gone extinct. But, many have also survived until today. If the trilobites were among that number of survivors, it would no more effect the Theory of Evolution than if the mammals were among that number of survivors.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-23-2008 8:28 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 5:27 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 35 of 137 (486787)
10-24-2008 3:27 PM


Here is a chart taken from this article written in 98 about the Cambrian explosion. The chart is a little old since it originated in 95.
Image caption:
The earliest appearance of body fossils of living phyla in geologic time. All
well-skeletonized phyla except Bryozoa are known from the Early Cambrian. First
records of soft-bodied forms are scattered through time from localities where
unusually favorable preservation has occurred. Modified from Valentine (1995).
Edited by dokukaeru, : Thumbnail

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 36 of 137 (486790)
10-24-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
10-22-2008 8:38 AM


Re: Modern life form--Answer to Mark24
mark24 writes:
And why is skeletonised invertebrates (note non-skeletonised ones were excluded) & not modern animal appearing in the Cambrian over the period of "about 10 million years" indicative of an intelligent designer?
First, off I did not say "designer". On my Message 12I quoted partially the book, A view of life,
"...all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded in our planet."
Then I said: "I understand that in that period, snails, sponges, starfish, tribolites (lobster like animals) and many other complex sea creatures appeared."
I found weird--or hard to understand-- your assertion of modern animal appearing on Cambrian period. It was Chopetera(?) who wrote "modern" which I just quoted. What do you mean by "modern" animal?
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 10-22-2008 8:38 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 10-24-2008 5:44 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 37 of 137 (486798)
10-24-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Blue Jay
10-24-2008 11:14 AM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
In a debate, your "opponent" is someone who takes the opposite view from you. Whether you like it or not, you and I are “opposed” to one another in terms of our views about the Tree of Life and evolution. By definition, that makes us “opponents.” That you attribute a bad connotation to that word is not a problem worth even the slightest consideration. Opponents need not be enemies, but that doesn’t mean we can just distance ourselves from the reality that we are at a fundamental disagreement, which disagreement is the basic principle behind this discussion.
Opponents are enemies. They can also be friends who happen to disagree. But, OK, fair enough. Let's not struggle with words.
Obviously, we’re not going to get anywhere in this debtate until we explain everything about the tree of life, evidence for evolution, and natural history to you. The problem with this approach is that we will spend a lot of time giving you back-up, and the thread will spill over the post limit before we even get to the intended subject.
I can see your point. But, I just can't help thinking that somehow by the way the discussion goes the tree of life is related to the Cambrian explosion. But, OK, let's try to stick to Cambrian.
You’re right: I should have chosen a better way to present this. But, you say that scientists are “speculating” about the tree of life, when I happen to know from personal experience that they are actually reporting the results of countless tiresome experiments and studies. The word “speculate” refers to people making stuff up off the top of their head based on a preliminary, cursory glance at some piece of information.
What about the word "conjecture" in the link you gave that I drilled up?
Of course, scientists speculate all the time. But, they don’t present speculations in peer-reviewed journals or in big science conferences, unless the intent is to stimulate conversation that could eventually turn the speculation into hypotheses to test by experimentation.
But, you have essentially called months of hard work in a laboratory “speculation.” To that, I take a small measure of offense.
Sorry, I did not intend to personally offend you. Far from it. I was just commenting on the articles reporting that scientists make conjectures, etc...
For example, you want to look at those sixteen pictures of fossils and interpret them as evidence of intelligent design. Your interpretation would then be in direct contradiction to entire series of fossils found segregated in the geological layers in a pattern that hauntingly resembles gradual, undirected change over time (and not segregated by, for example, floating capacity, as you’d expect in the case that the Flood was responsible)
Any clear photographs to back-up your assertions...those in bold font?
The evidence that we have is not universal, but it is general enough to support the claim that all organisms evolve.
If by "evolve" you mean that organisms adapt (e.g. the peppered moth to a brown black moth --which by the way is still a moth--same kind), I would agree. But, if you assert that you and I evolved from a simple life form, e.g. a trilobite, I disagree.
Whether or not there is a single common ancestor is still an open question, although the likelihood for multiple “baramin” or “kinds” at the outset of Creation is extremely slim, if existent at all.
The Cambrian photos tell of numerous complex creatures appearing at the that time--that's why the term "explosion". The creation account partly says...'let there be crawling souls of all kinds...let them produce according to kind. Without any interpretation / re-interpretation, those pictures support creation rather than speculation--or guess if you want. Remember, let's stick to the Cambrian explosion--not to any other form of so called "evidence".
Don’t turn it into a contest of trust. It’s not about who’s saying what, it’s about what the evidence points to.
By necessity, laymen like me have to rely on somebody, more preferably on unadulterated--and uninterpreted--evidence to form a judgment as to who among conflicting men of science are telling the truth.
But, descendants of many of those fossils are found today. You and I are descendants of one of those organisms
I disagree. I abhor the thought that those organisms are my ancestors. If so, then I may have been guilty of killing my relatives by making them as fishing baits.
But, then again if by "descendant / ancestor" you mean that we have common parts like vertebrae, then I have no problem. However, the use of words "descendant" "ancestor" in this sense--of having 'homologous'(?) parts--, is kinda weird and gross to me.
As to your question about finding a trilobite today: also, “No.” All animals today are descendants of animals that lived in the Cambrian period. Trilobites went extinct.
I swear as early as the 1960's I was making them fishing baits. Too bad I didn't have pictures of them. They are bad baits though. ( Was it because the fish recognize them as grandpa...while stupid me did not? )
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 10-24-2008 11:14 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Blue Jay, posted 10-25-2008 1:58 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 38 of 137 (486800)
10-24-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by bluescat48
10-23-2008 11:48 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
bluescat writes:
Trilobites create a problem in that with no surviving ancestors one can only speculate as to their relationship to either the mandibulate arthropods (insects, crustaceans, diplopods) or the chelicerate arthropods (horseshoe crabs or arachnids) and until such time as this can be determined there will be a problem of relationship.
Or we can also speculate that...
1) tribolites have no ancestors because they just appeared all of a sudden--that's why the term "explosion".
2) Or some outer space being--and this one from a scientist in the article I followed speculated--created or planted them here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by bluescat48, posted 10-23-2008 11:48 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bluescat48, posted 10-24-2008 5:51 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 39 of 137 (486801)
10-24-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 4:15 PM


Re: Modern life form--Answer to Mark24
Doubting Too,
First, off I did not say "designer".
I never said you did.
What do you mean by "modern" animal?
Any species alive today.
So, I repeat: "And why is skeletonised invertebrates (note non-skeletonised ones were excluded) & not modern animal appearing in the Cambrian over the period of "about 10 million years" indicative of an intelligent designer?"
If the answer is "the Cambrian explosion isn't evidence of a designer", that's fine, I'm trying to sound out your opinion.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 4:15 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 6:07 PM mark24 has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 40 of 137 (486802)
10-24-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 5:42 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
Or we can also speculate that...
1) tribolites have no ancestors because they just appeared all of a sudden--that's why the term "explosion".
2) Or some outer space being--and this one from a scientist in the article I followed speculated--created or planted them here.
No in that it is known that trilobites are arthropods but how they are related to the other arthropods is problematic. Their ancestors are the same as those of the other arthropods.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 5:42 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 6:22 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 41 of 137 (486804)
10-24-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Larni
10-24-2008 10:33 AM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
Hi Larni,
Why cover your beauty with a mask...Your name's the same as the lady I once had a crush. Take off your mask, please.
Now to your question:
You do realise that for something to evolve from a parent specie does not require the extinction of the parent specie, don't you?
If by evolve means adaptation--like the peppered moth illustration on text book which by the way is just a moth adapting to an environment--then I have no problem with that.
But if by evolve you mean a slow change, like this: 1) a bacteria as ancestor, 2) from bacteria to tribolite, 3) from tribolite to fish, 4) from fish to frog, 5) from frog to ape, 6) from ape to man. ( Just for illustrative purposes). I vehemently disagree. I don't see any evidence on the Cambrian explosion which is the topic of this thread.
Besides, Larni, my crush, I would be guilty of eating many of my relatives. I ate pork, beef, and has tasted a monkey. ( It actually tastes good). No, no, no. I won't admit of eating my ancestors!
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

"the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time"- The New Evolutionary Timetable, p95

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Larni, posted 10-24-2008 10:33 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 10-24-2008 6:47 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 42 of 137 (486809)
10-24-2008 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by mark24
10-24-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Modern life form--Answer to Mark24
mark24 writes:
If the answer is "the Cambrian explosion isn't evidence of a designer", that's fine, I'm trying to sound out your opinion.
Let me correct you. I did not say designer. My opinion is this: the fossils shown on the link Message 25--without any interpretation / speculation from scientists--appear to support creation. And, by creation, I mean that which is found in Genesis. Not exact wordings--'let the sea ( or was it land, or both?) bring forth creeping souls of all kinds...and let them reproduce according to kind'
Here's that link again: Cambrian Fossils
If someone asks me what does "kind" mean--then my answer is there is no need to interpret a text /word in any of this situation:
a) the text is clear by common usage or experience,
b)the author did not give a clue as to what the word really means.
Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by mark24, posted 10-24-2008 5:44 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 10-24-2008 6:39 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 43 of 137 (486812)
10-24-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by bluescat48
10-24-2008 5:51 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
bluescat writes:
trilobites are arthropods but how they are related to the other arthropods is problematic. Their ancestors are the same as those of the other arthropods.
Sorry, but statements like this only confuses me more. First, there is a problem of relationship between tribolites and other arthopods...then they have "the same ancestors as those of the other arthropods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bluescat48, posted 10-24-2008 5:51 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bluescat48, posted 10-24-2008 6:32 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 44 of 137 (486814)
10-24-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 6:22 PM


Re: When Will my Confusion End? Am I taken for a ride
Ancestor
\---------Mandibulate
|\
| \
| \
| \Trilobite
|
\Chilacerate
What I was saying is that the relationship between the trilobites and the rest of the phylum is in question but as per the above chart they can have the same common ancestor.
Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.
Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.
Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 6:22 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 137 (486815)
10-24-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by NOT JULIUS
10-24-2008 6:07 PM


Re: Modern life form--Answer to Mark24
Doubting Too,
Let me correct you. I did not say designer. My opinion is this: the fossils shown on the link Re: Why common anscestor... The confusion (Message 25)--without any interpretation / speculation from scientists--appear to support creation. And, by creation, I mean that which is found in Genesis.
So when I ask do you think it is evidence of an intelligent designer, the answer was yes all along. Why so coy?
So a protofishthing, phylum chordata, which was pretty much the only type of chordate in the Cambrian managed to evolve into all the chordates alive today? That's fish, bats, birds, dinosaurs, humans, kangaroos, lizards, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, moles etc. If phylum chordata isn't the "kind" you speak of, then where is it in the Cambrian?
And since when did the Genesis creation event take place in 10 million years, & why did god not bother to create the major plant phyla (divisions) in the Cambrian at all? Surely that's out of order?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 6:07 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NOT JULIUS, posted 10-24-2008 8:12 PM mark24 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024